S.K. Harrison skh23ca at
Fri Dec 14 04:02:27 EST 2001

> From: EFMonaco

> I appreciate your response and will hereafter
> refuse to participate further in this thread.  
> You can have the last word.  

I didn't ask for this faux grace of yours, nor
will I comply with its subtle coercion,
intentional or not.

> But......
> Personally, I don't have a problem with
> heterosexual monogomy; it works well for many
> species in nature.  (I don't see it as
> something to be eradicated from the face of the
> earth.) There is most definitely a difference
> between that joke and genderism. And it's a far
> cry from the Afgan joke.  The joke was not a
> genderist slam against women or men for that
> matter, just an observation of a quite frequent
> occurrance of interaction.  I'm guessing that
> you haven't been married.  There is pleanty of
> truth in that joke, no matter if it is
> considered by some to be in poor taste.  

Let me rephrase, since you appear to have missed
my point. People have been working for decades
and longer to eliminate the *hegemony* of
institutionalized gender roles and heterosexual
monogamy, but so far, you've demonstrated a
blithe ignorance of this historical fact.

Furthermore, by summarizing intimate
relationships as obsequious ("yes ma'am"), you
have made a false generalization only from your
own habituated manner of relating. I bet that a
joke acknowledging the array of relating styles
would have met with shared humour, instead of the
disagreement you are receiving now. With a little
thought, one could invent also a number of other
genial segues into hotbutton humour. I'd welcome
your ingenuity in this.

> I am
> happily married to one of the most progressive
> women on the planet who would dump me in a New
> York second (slam on NY?) if I even scented of
> genderism.  If she can laugh at that joke (and
> she can), perhaps others can too, even the
> self-proclaimed pollitically correct folks on
> this list (I've been on this list since it
> started).

To make something clear, I do not ally myself
with that brand of insular thinking called
"politically correct". You're using that label as
a pejorative and ignoring my point altogether.

In different circumstances, I might have enjoyed
the Afghan humour. My objection to it was made on
the grounds that a positive reception could be
guaranteed by careful selection from among other
forums. But posting here, in a forum that
attracts political activists of various stripes,
you should expect that some will object. If you
don't like that, then, consider the other options
I've suggested.

Although you have cut this conversation short,
I'd be glad to continue it--contrary to that
aformentioned myopic PC characterization you
appear to have given me. By any means, come

> Are you going to stay pissed off about this
> for a long time and chew up more bandwith
> banging this around? Or are you going to let it
> go?

Hmm, sounds like guilt by implication--"there,
there, calm down, you're just upset and aren't
thinking straight." Nice technique for cutting a
conversation short.

Of course, you did ask the question, Should we
talk about this? As you might expect, I say Yes.
To some extent, we can consider permaculture
adherents a community. As a result, we do have
some matters which will rear their heads from
time to time, not least the various political
issues which have sprouted concurrent with the
trademark, one manifestation of which you've hit
upon in your joke.

Since I've given my bit for now, I'd like to hear
from others who haven't commented, as I suspect a
range of opinions can be had, instead of the mere
polarized PC-unPC structure you (Gene) have set
up. In particular, I'd like to hear from
Larry--do we need to worry yet regarding the
volume of bandwidth we're consuming?

As for the corollary--wasting people's time--I
subscribe to the digest and have no trouble
skimming over the posts in which I have no
interest. How about those of you subscribing with
other formats?


Send your holiday cheer with

More information about the permaculture mailing list